The Colombian Military

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 15:22:

Novak points to real problems Even if his specific descriptions of the same aren't flawless, in my opinion.

The point is that the Army does need structural reform as far as these issues go, and it does need a lot of internal and external cleaning up of criminal or potentially criminal elements.

These elements have always existence and a certain culture of inaccountability along with them, this is is not new and that's where the structural nature of the problem lies.

Admittedly, they have become more evident now, due to these recent events and because, for once, there are actually a number of judicial processes going on that will probably not lead to absolute impunity for all of the accused (for example, there's the case of Jamundí, where in spite of the efforts of some Army officials and others, there's plenty of pressure, both internal and external, against such an outcome).

My view is that the U.S. should aid in a real reform of the Colombian military, its procedures and structures, instead of merely demanding puritanism or simply pretending that nothing's wrong.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 1, 2006, 15:34:

The problem I appreciate Bob Novak's honesty, which makes me think that he is not playing disingenuous: He is really just discovering about Colombia what most Colombians have known for decades. The problem with security policy being dictated from D.C. is that those officials there are clueless about what is going on in Colombia:

"It is that escalating loss of trust and confidence that I recently witnessed in Colombia -- as a result of criminal actions, not battlefield defeats -- that is threatening the Army"

Like this started happening two years ago. The Colombian government has been at a stalemate with FARC for 40+ years, and these people just figured out Problem 1. I don't blame them, I mean, they have plenty of problems themselves, getting the US military involved in so many adventures and their domestic issues is such disarray. But we are going to need a bit more independence from Washington to solve these problems, because otherwise they will start applying the great insights they had about Afghanistan and Iraq on Caquetá and Putumayo, and they will find somebody subservient enough to apply them against all odds.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 16:21:

That may be so.... Still, the stalemate, for at least the first 20 years, was practically a non-issue, given the insurgency's relatively small size and scale.

And right now the biggest change is that the FARC has lost much of the short-lived strategic initiative that it enjoyed around the mid-90s, even if the general stalemate remains.

Frankly, with all the flaws and problems that the current situation has brought (or simply made more evident), I prefer 2006's Colombia to 1996's.

Nevertheless, I still agree with the need for many changes (both small and large) to the current way of handling the situation, of course.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Oct 1, 2006, 18:02:

Wow. Juan - I'm curious. Your idea of getting US armed forces involved in structural reform isn't new. And I'm sure US money is always welcome, but I imagine you'd agree that when the US writes blank checks for the Colombian army, police... that certainly doesn't work AGAINST corruption.

Yet the more hands-on the US becomes, the more Special Forces we send to act as advisors, the more accountability we demand for that aid... the more opposition - both domestic and Colombian - we get.

1) Most Americans don't want our soldiers sucked into this conflict for a variety of reasons... Congress doesn't want to send more advisors.

2) Your nation, like all nations, is proud, and whether sincere or not, cries loudly about its sovereignty when we dictate conditions, even when those conditions are attached to generous gifts.

So how would you suggest that the _US_ set about instituting structural reform in the Colombian armed forces?

Actually, that's not our problem... so let me rephrase that: how does an ally, a friendly nation with many interests in common, go about assisting a democratic government to do what it can't do for itself because it's tied up in a gordonian knot of political corruption?

Sincere question.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 1, 2006, 18:18:

Juance Sorry, I missed your first post. I only have a comment about one point:

"My view is that the U.S. should aid in a real reform of the Colombian military, its procedures and structures, instead of merely demanding puritanism or simply pretending that nothing's wrong."

My view is that the US should save their taxpayers some money, stay the hell out of it, and let Colombian institutions work themselves out of their current situation. A big chunk of the current problem is that a lot of money is being funneled to defense: Mostly hard-earned Colombian taxpayer money, btw, and mostly for purposes that are not of their interest. Maybe a bit of Reaganism would work: Starve the beast. Start cutting down money on defense, use it exclusively on what is necessary, and the motivation for crime will be reduced. That, by itself, won't work: Restructuring is necessary, but from the top-down. I can't judge Santos as a minister yet, but if he turns out as any of his predecessors, we are in for trouble.

1996 or 2006? Good question. Problably 2006. But let's wait until 2010. Ask me again, and probably I won't be so sure.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 18:43:

Let's see... I'm not an expert here, of course, just presenting my opinions. There are no magical solutions here and I'm sure that I may be overlooking or simply forgetting several issues.

What I'm asking for is U.S. advice and analysis of the Army's structural flaws and of concrete ways to fix them, something which doesn't really have to come in as money (and btw, most current U.S. aid to Colombia doesn't come in as plain cash either, for what it matters).

I definitely agree that blank checks are not good at all. Which is why I'm against just ignoring the whole thing and pretending that it doesn't happen. I find that not only irresponsible but stupid as well, on both sides.

The problem here, in this specific case, is not political corruption per se, but rather a lack of accountability and deficient training within the military. That is something that has several of its roots in: a)tradition and doctrine c)internal military laws.

Even if there was no corruption at all on a political level, this would still be tolerated because it's the way that things have always been done, because bureucratic obstacles are many, and because some of these abuses are even in the spirit of what U.S. military training courses and manuals during the Cold War instructed (though I don't expect many U.S. officials or citizens to admit it).

If the U.S. assumed a more proactive role in today's particular environment, by promoting reform, it would provide an external boost to political authorities and it would speed things up.

When I speak of U.S. advice, I don't mean more U.S. SpecOps or Marine toughguys that may give some combat training to relatively few officers and engage in one black op or two.

That's not the point. I'm not talking about more battlefield training or more U.S. fire support.

I'm talking about, for example, analysts and experts in administrative, human rights and military reform, for example, whose conclusions should be, if not mandatory, at least very strong "suggestions".

Sovereignity is not really the issue here, if you consider that the U.S. is already quite involved in the situation and that, most importantly, it has a right (and some would say a duty) to make its aid count for something.

The U.S. has sent past teams of this specific type of advisors before, long before Plan Colombia even, and I don't think that there would be any additional outburt per se, if the mission was clear and didn't have any battlefield implications for those involved.

Previuos U.S. advisors were more concerned about counterinsurgency and intelligence (with rather, shall we say...ugly results) than with administrative, human rights and military reform, which is what I'm proposing.

If you don't want part of your money to go down the drain, then perhaps reallocating some human and political resources, in the first place, to this kind of structural reform might make it more efficient to begin with.

As you've mentioned, the U.S. already has placed several conditions on aid to Colombia. But merely giving aid to counternarcotics and counterinsurgency is not going to solve the rest of the problems if the U.S. doesn't do much of anything else, other than merely making demands. The demands should still be made but the U.S. should help Colombia in order to fulfill them. If not necessarily with money, then with experience and advice.

What's more, I definitely don't want to see increased U.S. military activity on the ground here. It's low but more than enough as it is and I don't think that it would change the outcome that much either. This isn't Vietnam and there is no need for the U.S. to execute that kind of direct intervention here.

Again, I'm not asking for additional aid mounts per se, either. At most, they could take a few funds away from the useless spray planes or even from other sectors, for all I'm concerned.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 19:06:

Sr Tertius "My view is that the US should save their taxpayers some money, stay the hell out of it, and let Colombian institutions work themselves out of their current situation."

In a different (perhaps ideal, perhaps not...) world I might definitely agree, but we are not in that world.

As long as the U.S. is here, giving aid and demanding some things in return, I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that it provide a better and more efficient kind of aid, at the very least in order to help get the results that it (and some of us, for different reasons) wants.

"A big chunk of the current problem is that a lot of money is being funneled to defense: Mostly hard-earned Colombian taxpayer money, btw, and mostly for purposes that are not of their interest."

I don't see that as the problem per se, though it may have contributed to it in recent years.

Yet for far too many years, too little money was funneled to defense as a whole and, like it or not, that deficit is partially responsible for the situation that we are in. Not entirely so, but partially.

IMHO, the Army was left in an unreformed and weak state (both morally and militarily, not one or the other) for far too long.

Reform costs money (which I'm not really asking the U.S. to provide), but also effort, political will and patience, and that simply wasn't there (and still isn't there, for the specific purposes I'm talking about in this topic...there was some in order to reform other things, but not for the kind of structural changes that I'm talking about).

"Maybe a bit of Reaganism would work: Starve the beast. Start cutting down money on defense, use it exclusively on what is necessary, and the motivation for crime will be reduced. "

Heh. You might just get lucky and get it right by doing that, who knows, but I wouldn't really think so.

The military was already quite prone to abuses, to put it bluntly, before the Cold War and during most of its duration, when there was very little money given to it as a percentage of the GDP and it pretty much was funded to cover only what was strictly "necessary" for long periods of time.

Little money but little reform either, and abuses were perhaps even more serious and regular than those that occur today, just much less publicly discussed.

And what's more, what is "exclusively necessary" today, in the kind of war that we are fighting at this stage, is far, far more than what you may think. Some things can still be cut, yes, but others...not really.

Cut too many of our own resources today and I have some guys with assault rifles that I'd like to introduce you to: Mr. Guerrilla and Mr. Paramilitary.

Perhaps you've met them before, as their brothers are still alive even as we speak, but you'll meet many more members of the family if the military weakens and gives them a lot of space back.

The military can be downsized, of course, and eventually it should be, but under the right circumstances. Not from one day to another.

For example, more and better social spending, something that I definitely support, can't be done at the cost of cutting military investment too deeply (unless we are within inches of signing a peace deal, I suppose). Other sectors of the budget would need to get cut first, and debts would have to be incurred in, at least during a transitional period.

"That, by itself, won't work: Restructuring is necessary, but from the top-down. I can't judge Santos as a minister yet, but if he turns out as any of his predecessors, we are in for trouble."

Well, yes and no. Kicking Santos or any other minister out won't be the end of things either. Even ministers with good intentions, which have previously been appointed, can't resolve things automatically on their own.

I agree with a "top-down" mentality if by that you include the high command of the military per se, the policies that they apply, the system that they use in order to decide who gains ranks and who doesn't, the laws that govern the military justice system, the kind of training that is given to officers and soldiers, etc.

"1996 or 2006? Good question. Problably 2006. But let's wait until 2010. Ask me again, and probably I won't be so sure."

Deal.

We'll talk about this by then, if PBH and both of us are still here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Oct 1, 2006, 20:09:

Is the U.S.A. Involved in colombia on their own initiative or because they were asked to be involved by colombia?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 20:21:

Swinn88 I'd say both.

The U.S. has a strategic interest in Colombia, both geographically, politically, geopolitically and even economically.

Not the greatest U.S. strategic interest in the world, obviously not, but a very important one, regionally.

When there were governments with less friendly dispositions vis-a-vis the U.S., long before Plan Colombia, there was still plenty of U.S. involvement here in one way or another.

For the U.S. to completely become uninvolved, in a permanent manner, all that would have to change and I don't see that happening in the immediate future.

You can't change strategic interests in a day, that takes decades at least.

For shorter periods of time, you can easily change the way in which the U.S. becomes involved, but not much else.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cartagena Hooker says on Oct 1, 2006, 20:40:

Corruption No Dar What? After seven years being involved in this country I have determined that I know very little about what is happening here. I have determined that there is endemic corruption at all levels of society. That there is no will to change the status quo and that a culture that places the responsibility on the victim vs the perpitrator (the papaya rule) is doomed to live with corruption eternally. Initially, I had a pollyana belief about Uribe. I felt that he would begin to attack corruption after being re-elected. So what does he do? He appoints Samper to be the ambassador to France. Really embarrasing for Colombia(business as usual). The only thing that changed the war here is Farc blew up a private club in Bogota. This resulted in the deaths of familys of the ruling class. It was not previously a problem when poor indian solders were fighting poor indian guerillas. Hey highschool graduates do not have to fight. Something had to be done. As to the noise about the murdered Cops in six months no one will remember. Its the way of all corruption everyone complains but no one will do anything. Eventually the problem disappears.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 1, 2006, 21:33:

Cartagena Hooker "After seven years being involved in this country I have determined that I know very little about what is happening here."

I guess that's a natural reaction, that more than one of us has felt at some point in time.

"I have determined that there is endemic corruption at all levels of society."

I can see why you may think that is the case, but I wouldn't be so adamant about it. There is a lot of corruption, of course, but whether it is all "endemic" and "at all levels of society" is debatable. Sometimes it may seem like it, yes, but there are lots of people that are not corrupt and IMHO it is very unfair to them to make such statements without a second thought.

"That there is no will to change the status quo and that a culture that places the responsibility on the victim vs the perpitrator (the papaya rule) is doomed to live with corruption eternally."

It's true that there is little will to change the status quo, most of the time. But there have been changes, even if slowly and unevenly.

The "papaya rule" is usually applied, seriously that is, very rarely and on a small scale. I don't think that most people apply such a rule to every aspect of their daily lives or to the larger issues of life, to say the least. It may reflect part of a wider mentality, but even that mentality is not monolithic.

And finally, very few things are eternal in human history other than death and taxes (bad paraphrase, I suppose). Tell me...was Western civilization born uncorrupt, puritan and flawless? I very, very much doubt it. Change takes time, a lot of time in countries such as Colombia, but it does happen.

You can't expect all societies whose independent life is less than, say, 200 years old to resolve all their internal and cultural tensions so quickly. That's going to be the exception rather than the rule.

"Initially, I had a pollyana belief about Uribe."

And so did many people, and many still do, but that kind of belief really shouldn't be held about anyone or anything. It leads either to blindness or to gross disappointment.

"I felt that he would begin to attack corruption after being re-elected."

That, unfortunately, has not been the case and I see your point. But I don't really expect him or any other single president to successfully execute and accomplish such an attack. Again, that won't change easily or quickly enough, even when better efforts are made.

"So what does he do? He appoints Samper to be the ambassador to France. Really embarrasing for Colombia(business as usual)."

Embarrasing, yes, but not that much representative of "corruption". Bad judgement, rather. Uribe's made other decisions that serve as better examples, IMO.

"The only thing that changed the war here is Farc blew up a private club in Bogota."

I'd have to respectfully disagree. The war had suffered several changes even before that particular event occured and I wouldn't give it that much importance myself.

"This resulted in the deaths of familys of the ruling class."

Of some members of the ruling class, but far more wounded than dead and not that many in the first place.

"It was not previously a problem when poor indian solders were fighting poor indian guerillas."

On the contrary, it did clearly become a problem before the event you speak of.

Not going to comment much on the idealized (or anti-idealized) image of the "Indian" soldiers and guerrillas, because that's not really accurate either.

"Hey highschool graduates do not have to fight."

Not necessarily. And well, as blunt as it may sound, if the war does not obviously require it and the people of all urban social classes don't feel the need for their children to fight in a war that appears to be far away, and usually is, can you honestly blame them?

"Something had to be done."

Nothing really that important was "done" after the event so your conclusion is more symbolic than descriptive, I guess.

"As to the noise about the murdered Cops in six months no one will remember."

Well, *my* crystal ball says otherwise, so nyah! J/K.

Maybe you have a better one, but there are differences surrounding this case that I can't help but notice. If you were talking about many others, of course, you'd be very much right.

"Its the way of all corruption everyone complains but no one will do anything."

That may seem to be the case, but changes do happen below the surface, even if they take years, decades or centuries to fully materialize.

If you expect immediate action and heavy contrasts then, obviously, you'll be greatly disappointed (and that's something which doesn't always occur even in very advanced human societies...I could list a bunch of issues that the U.S. public complains and complains about but doesn't even try to resolve either, if that mattered).

"Eventually the problem disappears."

In many people's minds, but that doesn't stop the flow of history, as slow as it may be. Slower and more painfully in Colombia and in Latin America as a whole, obviously, but it still continues to flow, whether we recognize it or not.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cartagena Hooker says on Oct 2, 2006, 16:21:

Dear Juan Try to respond to my post in context. Taking it apart and responding to sentences separately may be advanced journalism, but it does not relate my intention or attitude.If you have a great need to be right go ahead.
Have you ever tried to maintain employees here or deal with government officials. How about the justice system have you been robbed or cheated. How many employees have you fired for stealing from you. Where do you think the money came from to build this country. I was here thirty years ago and they sure sold a lot of coffee and emeralds to make all these Cachacos and Paisas so rich.My opinion is only based on my small amount of time here, but I am sure you can find a better perspective at the youth hostel By the way, do you know what a yeahbut is ?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 2, 2006, 16:50:

CH.... I am not saying that I'm "right" per se, just giving my opinion, which is only "right" within my limited and subjective view of reality. A view that also gradually changes, for better or for worse.

I am all too aware of that, but it doesn't prevent me from debating here and presenting my views, even if it may seem overly aggressive sometimes. That might be the form it takes, I know, but that's not my sole intention. My intention is to exchange views, pure and simple. Sometimes in a friendly manner, other times...not so much.

As for the questions you've posed, I could answer them too, from my point of view. I've lived in this country longer than you, my whole life in fact, but obviously my experiences and resulting conclusions are not going to be identical to yours. Some are similar, perhaps, but clearly not identical.

I've never denied the existence of widespread corruption, or of exploitation and robbery, but I am against simply reducing it all to "everyone at every level is corrupt" and other extreme generalizations.

Using that kind of reasoning, then one could simply jump ahead, using reductio ad absurdum, and conclude that the entire human race is corrupt and will never change, so we should spend all our time condemning and lamenting that fact.

Therefore, comparing and listing events or observations from each of our personal experiences in Colombia really won't make much sense here, it'll just become a pissing contest.

I didn't immediately know what a yeahbut was, but after some searching I can get at least part of your point. My reply is: So? As humorous as it may be to call someone or something a "yeahbut", real life is not and has never been black and white.

Simply reducing everything to a "yes" or "no" answer, 100% of the time, is impossible for those that are not omniscient. Which none of us are, not me and not you. So I have no regrets about me or my responses being called "yeahbuts".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

mcraig says on Oct 3, 2006, 19:43:

Why do you people not learn about plan colombia Plan colombia is an agreement asked (begged for) by the colombian goverment. For some reason you think the US goverment just started Plan colombia an off we went. Wrong , Colombia came begging us for help , there was a long period of debate in the house an senate to even help the colombians. Colombians wanted us to put US troops on the ground, use our security equipment, get military weaponary from us an etc, We settled on giving them the military equipment, money for plan colombia, some actual miltary training an to let military contractors legally help with so more training.

We are not there to fight your war , we are just there to give you the equipmnet an trainging to stand up for your democracy against terroism. An sll we ever hear about is the complaining the americans are doing something wrong. We have no part in it an who cares how many people die as long as the country wins the firght against the farc an ElN an whoever else wants to get in the way. Colombians have a missions just like the iraqi's have mission stand up for your self an win your country back.

Novak has become right wing nut job in the past ten years an that is coming from a conservative he has no business still being involved in politics.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 4, 2006, 14:38:

mcraig "Begged for" may be your perception, but considering that the current shape of Plan Colombia sticks quite closely to the U.S.'s priorities (not Colombia's)...the U.S. was (and is) very "gung-ho" as far as the "war on drugs" is concerned.

I very much doubt that the U.S. government was willing to sit happily while coca cultivation and exportation skyrocketed in Colombia (though, of course, I believe that current drug strategy and prohibition in general are NOT the answer either).

And really...I very much doubt that Colombia wanted "U.S. troops on the ground" in any significant way (ie: much more than what's currently the case), and nothing in the early Pastrana government docs that I've read indicates anything remotely resembling that. Some people feared and fear that, but that's not realistic possibility in nobody's eyes, much less Colombia's.

That "we are not there to fight your war" is obvious, but the U.S. is fighting a war of its own: protecting its strategic interests, be it through the tired "war on drugs", the even older "war on communism", or through the new "war or terror". As long as the U.S. sees a need to protect their interests here, it makes sense to ask the U.S. try help Colombia more efficiently (even if with identical or even lower quantities of aid, in any case).

Finally, comparing Colombia and Iraq is ridiculous, to be frank. The U.S. literally knocked down all the columns in Iraq and now has to deal with the consequences of the ensuing chaos, a chaos that it played a decisive part in creating and fostering. In other words, the U.S. caused most of the entire mess and needs to clean it up.

Colombia, by the standards of current Iraq, almost looks like a peaceful country (which it isn't, of course, by the standards of truly peaceful countries).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 4, 2006, 15:06:

Yes Tinto, Change is likely But even Democrats won't go all out on "bring down Plan Colombia". Remember it was Clinton who originally got this thing approved.

At least for a considerable initial period, the most that they'll do is demand changes to Plan Colombia, but not a cancellation of it per se.

0 funny, 0 helpful.